The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[SeattleUte]

The NY Times is well into phase III of their development of Trump as a Republican Party Trojan Horse: The theme: The GOP is being ripped apart because the establishment is now--probably too late--mobilizing to destroy him by any means necessary. lol

[Topper]

The NY Times is well into phase III of their development of Trump as a Republican Party Trojan Horse: The theme: The GOP is being ripped apart because the establishment is now--probably too late--mobilizing to destroy him by any means necessary. lol

This could become a doomsday weapon, and the lethargy of the GOP elite will drive the party further into submission. Even if the GOP elite destroy Trump, how in the hell will that help the GOP in the general election? If they wanted another candidate, they should have been doing something sooner. Now whatever they do plays right into the hands of the coordinated attacks of the Democrats.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Ben Carson has finally said something that I agree with him on.

[Flystripper]

My Romney fantasy: He's going to announce tomorrow his support for the Kasich/Rubio ticket. Kasich, being older and more experienced, will have the first slot; Rubio will be able to run for President anytime in the next 25 years, and with far more gravitas than he can currently muster. Such a ticket would crush Hillary's chances. Romney will also announce that NBC is re-starting The Apprentice and has quintupled Trump's salary, as his ratings will now be even better. Everybody wins what they seek most.

My fantasy is that Trump wins and has Mit as his VP. During his inauguration address after being sworn in he says to the nation:

"This was all just a social experiment to expose how fucked up this country is. I am now going to die for my country so that it can be actually become great again."

He then pulls out a gun and shoots himself in the head thereby making Romney POTUS.

[Flystripper]

Don't you all have to ask yourselves why you belong to a party that has 2/3 of its voters primary voters voting for candidates that are insane/dangerous? So, is conservative orthodoxy is now a fringe part of the party?

Its a big reason why I have not been a republican for quite some time now.

[Northwestcoug]

No idea if this is real, but LOL anyways!

Embedded Tweet

[Topper]

Its a big reason why I have not been a republican for quite some time now.

I understand the angst of Trump, because I share that. And I don't like the evangelicals with their crazy anti-libertarian notions. But, how is being a Democrat anybody?

Dems are worse on liberties than the GOP is, or at the very best, just as bad. Dems do not control the growth or shape of government. I can't understand how any person with typical GOP sentiments, i.e., less regulation, less government intervention and manipulation of the monetary system or blending it with the fiscal obligations of the federal government, could feel comfortable within the Democratic Party. Explain how such a person feels comfortable with Dems?

[Northwestcoug]

I understand the angst of Trump, because I share that. And I don't like the evangelicals with their crazy anti-libertarian notions. But, how is being a Democrat anybody?

Dems are worse on liberties than the GOP is, or at the very best, just as bad. Dems do not control the growth or shape of government. I can't understand how any person with typical GOP sentiments, i.e., less regulation, less government intervention and manipulation of the monetary system or blending it with the fiscal obligations of the federal government, could feel comfortable within the Democratic Party. Explain how such a person feels comfortable with Dems?

Go ahead and keep banging that drum Topper. Someone here will surely wake up and realize there's no reason to vote democrat, no matter who the republican is!

[byu71]

Hey, I never promoted a liberal conspiracy. I believe in a press that kissed his fanny but will tear him apart when he goes up against Hillary. His biggest press problems has been with Fox

Worst to best

Bernie
Cruz
Hillary
Trump
Rubio
Kasich

[Topper]

Go ahead and keep banging that drum Topper. Someone here will surely wake up and realize there's no reason to vote democrat, no matter who the republican is!

Make a cogent argument of why a business minded person, or person who cares about the costs of government and basic liberties, should ever vote Democrat?

So far, the only argument advanced by anybody not a Democratic homer, is "hey, she doesn't suck as much as Trump." And because suckitudeness is in the eye of the beholder, that means she is also unqualified to hold office. I know this is untenable, but it would be refreshing for the office to lie vacant for four years until a qualified candidate could emerge.

If a moderate Democrat, who had libertarian ideals (something no Democrat in recent memory has possessed), desired for a dynamic economy with minimal regulation (enough to foster competition but not to stifle it), and who wasn't whacko on social issues, then it would be possible to consider a Democratic candidate. However, no such candidate could ever receive the national nomination, as the Dems require you to pass a litmus test. You must bash upper middle and upper incomes as being the worst evil society has ever met and declare war on income inequality, you must detest property rights and property ownership, you must swear to eliminate gun ownership or to pass onerous restrictions which make it impossible for one to own unless one is elite, you must advocate restrictions on First Amendment rights of free speech if the speech is unpopular or displeasing, etc, you must advocate a vast, cataclysmic recasting of the healthcare industries irrespective of the social disruption such massive overhaul would create. By the time you pass this test, you are no longer a moderate or possessing of any libertarian ideals.

[Uncle Ted]

So the WSJ says that the White House was telling Hillary the opposite of what Obama was saying about Obamacare to the public...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys...ret-1456877391

Here is the email that they were quoting:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOC.../C05764439.pdf

This is the kind of sh*t that may put Drumpf in the White House.

[myboynoah]

This:

I don't see how working class = "THE LIBERALS"

[Topper]

So the WSJ says that the White House was telling Hillary the opposite of what Obama was saying about Obamacare to the public...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys...ret-1456877391

Here is the email that they were quoting:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOC.../C05764439.pdf

This is the kind of sh*t that may put Drumpf in the White House.

That is incredible. No outrage?!

[Maximus]

So the WSJ says that the White House was telling Hillary the opposite of what Obama was saying about Obamacare to the public...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys...ret-1456877391

Here is the email that they were quoting:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOC.../C05764439.pdf

This is the kind of sh*t that may put Drumpf in the White House.

since the woj is behind a paywall, which part is the one that contradicts ?

[Uncle Ted]

since the woj is behind a paywall, which part is the one that contradicts ?

Stop being cheap and get an subscription...

The State Department released the last batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails on Monday, and the exercise has been instructive about her recklessness with classified material. But as a side note, we ought to memorialize what President Obama’s aides were telling Mrs. Clinton about the Affordable Care Act, which was the opposite of what their boss was telling the public.

Despite her duties as top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton found time to follow ObamaCare’s progress in Congress, and she received regular updates from Neera Tanden, then a White House health staffer. Ms. Tanden is now president of the liberal Center for American Progress, Mrs. Clinton’s economic policy shop.

In an Oct. 19, 2009 email, Mrs. Clinton asked Ms. Tanden, “Are you worried about the lack of cost controls in the current bills?” Ms. Tanden replied that “the dirty little secret is that we don’t have a lot of good evidence on what works—in a way that Congress has any appetite to do. I mean, cost controls, as we all know, is [sic] attacked as rationing. So everyone likes to discuss this, including the Administration, but then on the other hand, says they won’t touch the benefits. Now there is a lot of fat in the system, but some of that excess is just too much care. Yet no one really wants care to be restricted.”

Not a month earlier, the President had promised Congress that the bill would save “hundreds of billions of dollars,” according to “Democratic and Republican experts.” In March 2010 he said that “we have now incorporated almost every single serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care.”

Ms. Tanden was telling Mrs. Clinton that the truth was closer to the reverse. She wrote that “the other problem” is that the de minimis cost-control problems that ObamaCare did include “need some time to incubate because we don’t have all the evidence we need. . . . We may have oversold what these bills will (or even can) do.” Critics at the time, including us, argued that White House claims about cost control were always a bill of goods. But we’d be curious to hear what ObamaCare architects like Peter Orszag think of Ms. Tanden’s private candor, or the credulous columnists they duped.

By the way, the Clinton-Tanden correspondence is heavily redacted for some reason, and its release was delayed almost a year for interagency review—though emails about health care shouldn’t compromise national security. Perhaps they also shared a between-us laugh about the other health-care deceptions the White House was getting away with.